Martinian Reunion on 30th May, 2008 at 8.30pm at the Ivory, Clary Quay in Singapore

6.30PM: “Sorry I can’t make it today – very tired” – Fellow Martinian

7.45PM: “I heard a lot of people not coming, so think won’t be coming today” – Fellow Martinian

8.15PM: (I am dreading it will be another person not coming) “Hey…where is Ivory?.. can’t find it.. are you there?) – Ravi, Batch 2004

Not bad I thought, atleast someone from around my batch (I am batch of 2005) going and eventually there were atleast 50 martinians who came.

I was at Ivory by 8.40pm and there was one person from batch of 1967 and a few from the 1990’s….and myself 2005. Was wondering whether I am going ot be out of place and just then Mr. Prashun Dutt (Batch of 1972) started talking to me and telling me about himself. I was pretty much the only student. He seemed to know my dad, Pradeep Kumar Gupta (who is no more) who was a few years senior (Batch 1968) to him in La Martiniere and started telling me about his early days in Bangalore with my dad which intrigued me. Then more about life in La Martiniere then and so on.

The met the gentleman from 1967. He writes books now on creativity – amazing stuff! He enlightened me about the fact that La Martiniere, Lucknow had different house names except Martin…Wow! So many years in school and find out this after I graduate.

Anyway, I was pretty much the youngest but somehow the event went beyond age, religion, nationality – there was a different bond we shared – the Martinian Bond. A common memory thread with the greatest memories of the traditions and culture of an almost 173 years old school founded by Generl Claude Martin. A little information for the Non-Martinians – La Martiniere was established in 1836 in Kolkata and has only 2 other sister branches – one in Lucknow and one in France (in Lyon).

We then divided into our houses – Hastings (Red – my house), Charnock (Green), Martin (Blue) and Macaulay (Yellow) – and had a Martinian quiz on how well we know our school and founder – Hastings came in 2nd with 6 out of 7 correct and Martin won with all 7 right!! It wasn’t about winning – it was rekindling memories of school days and the inter-house challenges, Sports day, fests, etc.

We had the La Martiniere for Boys and Girls flag up, the house colours and the school song up. We all stood up to sing the school song – “Hail! Hail! The name we owe…Hail to the giver. Blessings and Bright renowned. Be his forever….”. It was amazing how it sound like one soul and one voice singing the praises of our founder and every single one remebered.

We also cut the cake – Batch of 1967 and myself since I was the youngest – it was one good cake. Now, you must be wodnering if I was the youngest why the 2007 in my title. Well, I held onto the position of the youngest till the very last when Zameer from Batch of 2007 landed up and yup we had 40 years of tradition, culture and brotherhood amongst us.

I have been to a lot of gatherings and parties but this one of those events which I was in absolute two minds about going and after being there I don’t regret a second. Amazing!! Loved every minute of it. So much so that I miss school now and going to go right back to it when I get back to India – to Kolkata – my home and to La Martiniere – my second home!

Vive La Martiniere!

Some Pictures from the event:

                                   

                  

                   

                 

                 

                 

An amazing job done at comparing B2C Marketing with C2C Marketing… 

 

I love collecting one liners and quotes…And below are some of them which I love in no particular order of preference…..Do feel free to leave some good quotes if any..

________

“There is always a solution, one just has to find it!”

“Perfect is Almost good enough!”

“Modesty is not my virtue, Honesty is!”

“Impossible is just a word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in a world they have been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It’s an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It’s a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary.
Impossible is NOTHING.” – Adidas Ad with Muhammad Ali

“Always remember that I have taken more out of alcohol than alcohol has taken out of me” – Winston Churchill

“Everything is Personal!”

“To accomplish great things, we must not only act, but also dream; not only plan, but also believe.” Anatole France

“Women make good house-wives as they have enormous intellectual capital advantage over men in the specialization of domestic labour” – Timothy Kerswell, 24/4/2007 (On criticizing liberal feminists)

“Sooner or later we all discover that the important moments in life are not the advertised ones, not the birthdays, the graduations, the weddings, not the great goals achieved. The real milestones are less prepossessing. They come to the door of memory unannounced, stray dogs that amble in, sniff around a bit and simply never leave. Our lives are measured by these.” – Susan B. Anthony

“It has always seemed strange to me that the qualities we admire in men – kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling – are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest – sharpness, greed acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest – are the traits of success. And while men admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second.” – Doc Ricketts in Cannery Row by John Steinbeck

“It is essential to understand that battles are primarily won in the hearts of men.” – Vince Lombardi

“When was the last time you did something for the first time?” – Anon

“Those who dance are considered insane by those who can’t hear the music.”

“The only thing that has ever made me feel old is those few times where I allow myself to become predictable.” – Carlos Santana

“India is,
the cradle of the human race,
the birthplace of human speech,
the mother of history,
the grandmother of legend,
and the great grand mother of tradition.
Our most valuable and most instructive materials in the history of man are treasured up in India.” – Mark Twain

“Elegance is an Attitude” – Longines DolceVita

“A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.”- Winston Churchill

“Life Is What Happens To You When You’re Busy Making Other Plans.” – John Lennon

“Common sense is nothing but a collection of misconceptions acquired by the age of 18.” – Albert Einstein

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” – Albert Einstein

“Entrepreneurship is not a career it is a lifestyle” – Ventures – Entrepreneurship@SMU

“The Impossible just takes a little longer”

“Reach for the sky you will surely get the clouds”

GOD’S SIGNIFICANCE

 

Pomander Dada said that the only thing that makes life worth living is God. Blasé Pascal’s famous “wager” basically argued that we should believe in God, just in case. The question is why? What is the significance of God, and how does this make any difference in one’s life (if any)? Buddha was once, according Hinayana and Mahayana tradition, asked by his disciples if God existed, to which the Buddha replied something along the lines of “who cares?”

 

It seems that the religions keep its believers in line via threats of eternal torment (Christian Hell or Islamic Jahannam). Is this the point of your life? To avoid punishment at the hands of a being more powerful than you? Is that not coercion? To threaten someone, and say “do as I say, or I will punish you severely” is cruel, and very unbecoming of an allegedly merciful being.

 

Is life meant only for appeasing the whims of a cosmic bully? I think many believers would argue that it is not so much an attempt to escape punishment as it is to make it to heaven/paradise. Is life solely meant for gaining some sort of physical reward? It seems pointless to live one’s life solely for the sake of some sort of personal gain.

 

The third and final reason to serve God, assuming he exists, is simply for the sake of doing it. Believers “serve” God as part of a “relationship” they have with him; out of love and respect for God.

 

I think these hi-lights a simple fact that human beings form relationships with or interact with other beings for only three reasons:

(1) To gain something.

(2) To avoid pain, suffering, or punishment.

(3) Out of simple love and respect for that being.

 

This is the case with all beings, from our pets, to other humans, to our respective deity (assuming we have one). Therefore, God is no more different from any other being in the grand scheme of things. You love God, and I love my family, my friends, my boy friend and not to forget my pet dog, Timmy.  Also, if Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam threatened to have me killed for disputing the legitimacy of his claim to the presidency, I would not think of him as an honorable or merciful being.

 

CONCLUSION

 

God’s alleged attributes are both illogical and incoherent. The reasons for believing that he exists have been shown to be either fallacious or pointless. No proof for his alleged existence has ever been provided. The very idea of his existence is of a fantastic nature, and thus questionable. It is for all these reasons that I submit to you that any God defined as omniscient and/or omnipotent and/or infinite is impossible.

GOD AND INFINITY

 

Is God an infinite being?  As the great Pantheist/Buddhist thinker Brett Neichin once  put  it,  “when  you  point  to  something  that  isn’t  God,  you’ve  just  limited  God.” If  God  and  his  creation  are  totally  separate,  one  would  wonder  where  God  ends  and  his  creation  begins.  If  God  is  at  point  X,  and  the  body  of  an  object/person  ABC  is  at  point  Y,  then  God  is  limited.

 

A  way  to  argue  this  point  would  be,  if  this  is  true,  it  also  means  that  Osama  Bin  Laden  is  God,  that  drugs  are  part  of  God,  that  excrement  is  part  of  God,  that  poisonous  plants  are  part  of  God,  et  cetera.  To theists this seems wholly absurd and unthinkable.  One  theist  might  ask  “so  you  really  think  Osama  Bin  Laden  is  God?”  The answer is “No.  I don’t believe God exists”.  However,  if  we  are  going  to  claim  the  existence  of  an  unlimited  being,  we  must  be  consistent.  If  the  being  is  at  one  point,  and  not  another,  he/she/it  is  limited.  To  be  truly  unlimited,  the  being  must  be  in  all  things,  and  be  all  things. The  concept  of  God  being  unlimited  is  also  weakened  by  the  idea  that  the  believers  will  be  able  to  see  God  after  judgment  day.  If  God  can  be  seen,  then  that  means  he  has  a  shape,  volume,  color,  and  is  thus  limited.  There  is  also  the  concept  of  God’s  throne,  which  seems  very  physical,  thus   if  God  is  sitting  at  a  given  point,  at  a  given  time,  He  has  very  physical  characteristics,  and  is  limited.

 

Thus,  every  inch  of  our  entire  universe  must  be  a  part  of  God  if  he  is  truly  infinite.  However,  the  problem  with  that  is,  things  within  our  universe  change,  and  it  would  seem  that  change,  as  was  pointed  out  by  Aristotle  long  ago,  negates  perfection.  The  point  of  all  this  is  to  show  the   absurd   nature  of  the  concept  of  an  unlimited  being.

 

PROOF OF GOD’S EXISTENCE

Can  you  prove  the  existence  of  God  rather  than  just  claiming  it?  The  most  popular  argument  used  by  theists  to  argue this question  is  the  design  argument  (as  they  can  only  put  forward  arguments.  No proof of his existence has yet been put forward.) The  basic  (and  wholly  circular)  design  argument  from  theists  goes  something  to  the  effect  of  “if  something  as  complex  as  life  wasn’t  created  by  God,  then  how  was  it  made?  Did it just pop out of thin air?” By  the  above  argument,  you  are  simply  asserting  that  the  world  is  designed  and  that  God  is  the  designer.  This is NOT a proof.

 

Another  argument  is  that  every  thing  has  a  cause,  and  it  is  impossible  to  have  an  infinite  regress  of  causes (this  assertion  has  yet  to  be  proven),  and  thus  God  is  the  first  cause  (another  baseless  assertion). Once  again,  it  runs  along  the  lines  of  “if  God  didn’t  create  the  universe,  who  did?”  The  problem  with  this  is  that  it  is  never  proven  that  God  is  this  alleged  first  cause.  We  could  just  the  same  state  that  all  things  need  a  cause,  and  thus  wonder  “what  caused  God?”  The  supporters  of  this  argument  want  us  to  just  accept  the  premise  that  God  is  the  first  cause,  and  does  not  Himself  need  a  cause,  which  is  a  case  of  special  pleading,  i.e.  a  fallacy.

A  counter – example  to  prove  that  God’s  existence  can  never  be  proven  unless  he  actually  reveals  himself :

(1) If  there  are  presents  under  my  tree,  Santa  Claus  exists.

(2) There are presents under my tree.

 ————————————————————————-

(3) Santa Claus exists.

The above argument is perfectly valid.

 

Now  suppose  I  used  this  argument,  and  pointed  to  actual  presents  under  my  tree.  Would this be proof that Santa Claus exists?  Despite  the  fact  that  it  is  a  valid  argument,  this  is  not  a  proof  for  Santa  Claus’  existence  and  the  argument  is  hence  unsound.  To  understand  why,  one  would  need  a  basic  knowledge  of  sentential  logic.

 

P = “There are presents under my tree”.

S = “Santa Claus exists.”

 

I  will  now  construct  a  Logical  Truth  Table  for  all  the  possibilities:

 

P	S
T	T
T	F
F	T
F	F

 

These are all the possible “truths” for these two statements.  Now note the second line.  It  is  possible  for  presents  to  be  under  my  tree,  and  it  is  also  possible  for  Santa  to  not  exist.  Thus, according to sentential logic, P does not imply S.  That  is  the  reason  that  the  perfectly  valid  argument  does  not  prove  Santa’s  existence.  Anytime  that  you  claim  that  a  totally  ambiguous  and  unobservable  entity  (“Santa  Claus,”  “God,”  “the Pink Unicorn,”  et cetera)  exists,  and  try  to  prove  it  pointing  to  something  common,  it  can  be  argued  that  the  existence  of  the  common  thing  does  not  automatically  imply  the  existence  of  the  baseless  and/or  undefined  thing  you  are  trying  to  prove.

 

Complex  life  forms  and  the  very  existence  of  the  universe  does  not  imply  God’s  existence.

 

The  following  argument  is  the  outline  of  all  proofs  for  God’s  existence:

(1) If X, then God exists.

(2) X.

——————————–

(3) God exists.

 

While this argument is logically valid, it does not prove that God exists because X does not necessarily imply God’s existence, thus the first premise is erroneous. This is why every argument for God’s existence can be shot down so easily.

 

To this point I have, in my opinion, discredited the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, unlimited God, and I have also shown why all arguments for his existence are somewhat fallacious. At this point, emotion comes in, and some theists might say that they feel God deep in their heart. A sincere gut feeling is not proof of anything, as many people sincerely believe many things, and many of these sincere beliefs contradict one another. Some theists might say that they can’t imagine a world without God. What is the point of life if God does not exist? I wonder what is the point of life either way.

GOD AND OMNIPOTENCE

If  God  is  omnipotent,  then  he  can  do  anything,  and  he  can  create  anything.  As  was  just   shown,  the  concept  of  omnipotence  contradicts  the  concept  of  omniscience,  thus  for  God  to  be  truly  omnipotent,  he  would  have  to  be  limited  in  knowledge  (as  odd  as  that  may  sound).  If  this  is  in  fact  the  case,  then  that  would  in  itself  negate  God’s  omnipotence,  as  there  would  already  be  one  thing  God  could  not  do :  make  himself  omniscient!!!

There  are  other  irreconcilable  problems  with  the  concept  of  an  all-powerful  deity.  What can God create?  If  he  is  omnipotent,  then  he  can  create  everything  and  anything.  This is where questions that theists hate, come in.  Can God create a four – sided triangle?  Some  theists  have  argued  that  this  is  an  unfair  question,  as  we  are  asking  God  to  create  something  in  a  way  that  is  totally  opposite  to  its  definition.  Regardless,  this  shows  how  human  beings  can  limit  what  God  can  do  by  way  of  our  own  definitions.  The  very  fact  that  “God”  is  an  ambiguous  sound  that  was  created  by  human  language,  and  because  of  this  he/she/it  can  be  limited  through  human  language.

Regardless,  Christian  and  Muslim  theologians/philosophers  (from  Saint  Aquinas  to  Bin  Sian)  have  tried  to  escape  such  questions  by  arguing  that  God  can  only  do  what  is  possible,  and  not  do  what  is  impossible.  This  has  been  an  attempt  to  salvage  the  concept  of  God’s  omnipotence,  but  it  instead  admits  that  he  is  limited  in  power.  There  are  things  that  are  even  impossible  for  God,  hence  God’s  powers  are  limited,  thus  God   is  a  limited   being.  Then,  to  take  a  page  from  theist  arguments,  one  might  ask  “who  put  those  limitations  on  God?”  I  think  from  here  one  could  understand  that  limitations  are  simply  given  and  defined  by  the  eternal  laws  of  the  mathematics,  the  universe,  nature,  et  cetera,  and  there  is  no  reason  to  assume  limitations  and  rules  must  have  a  source.

In  short,  God,  or  any  being  that  we  assume  exists,  would  have  to  be  subject  to  the  laws  of  the  universe.  God  cannot  create  four – sided  triangles;  he  cannot  alter  the  rules  of  mathematics.  These laws cannot be changed because they are not created.  They are simply given facts.  The  laws  of  the  universe  do  not  require  some  sort  of  law  giver,  and  the  very  nature  of  these  laws  help  to  totally  discredit  the  concept  of  omnipotence.

IN INTRODUCTION  

 

I will  explore  some  of  God’s  alleged  attributes,  the  attempted  arguments  for  his  alleged  existence,  and  what  life  without  God means. Any God that is omniscient and/or omnipotent and/or infinite cannot exist and I shall demonstrate the impossibility of God in these forms.  Surely if God as defined by any religion is defined in these forms, then all other claims of those religions fall with him.

 

GOD AND OMNISCIENCE

 

One  of  the  definitions  of  God  is  that  of  a  being  who  is  infinite  in  knowledge.  God knows all things, even what your heart conceals.  This  makes  sense  for  a  being  that  is  unlimited;  such  a  being  should  know  all  things  at  all  times.  With  this  I  would  like  to  explore  this  idea,  and  begin  with  an  attempt  to  apply  the  popular  “free  will”  argument  to  this  concept.       

 

Let us consider his entire creation.  At  what  point  is  an  action  the  will  of  God,  and  at  what  point  is  an  action  the  result  of  an  independent  decision  on  the  part  of  one  of  his  creations?  Do these two things overlap?  At  the  very  creation  of  the  universe,  God  must  have  instantly  known  everything  that  was  going  to  happen,  from  this  moment,  all  the  way  to  judgment  day.  The  entire  history  of  life,  past,  present,  and  future,  was  predetermined.  There  is  no  way  you  can  truly  change  your  life,  as  everything  you  will  ever  do,  was  already  “written.”  You  have  no  real  choices,  as  there  is  only  one  possibility  for  you  considering  that  it  was  already  known  what  you  were  going  to  do  before  you   or  your  ancestors  were  even  created.  Thus,  it  would  seem  that  free  will  and   an  eternally  omniscient  God  are  wholly  incompatible  and  incoherent.

 

On  a  similar  track,  the  very  idea  of  prayer  comes  off  as  totally  absurd  in  light  of  God’s  alleged  omniscience.  What are you praying for?  A  prayer  for  change  is  worthless,  as  all  things  are  predetermined  if  God  is  omniscient.  Thus,  one  would  have  to  conclude  that  prayers  are  not  for  asking  for  change,  but  rather  meant  only  to  praise  God.  The  idea  of  prayer  being  a  source  of  psychological  benefit  is  also  absurd,  as  it  was  already  predetermined  who  would  go  crazy  and  who  would  benefit  psychologically.

 

Another  problem  with  God’s  alleged  omniscience  is  that  it  cancels  out  his  attribute  of  being  omnipotent.  It  is  totally  illogical  to  claim  that  a  being  is  both  all-knowing  and  all-powerful.  As  George  Smith  put  it,  “If  God  knows  the  future  with  infallible  certainty,  he  cannot  change  it  -  in  which  case  he  cannot  be  omnipotent.  If  God  can  change  the  future,  however,  he  cannot  have  infallible  knowledge  of  it  prior  to  its  actual  happening  -  in  which  case  he  cannot   be  omniscient.”  [Smith, Atheism:  The Case against God, (1989, Prometheus) pg. 74]

To  make  it  more  clear,  consider  the  following  sequence  of  statements:

(1) God is omniscient, i.e.  he knows all things.

(2) God is omnipotent, i.e.  he can do all things.

(3) God  knows  everything  that  he  will  ever  do  after  this  point  [from  (1)].

(4) God  can  do  anything  he  pleases,  at  anytime  he  pleases  [from  (2)].

(5) God  can  change  his  mind  about  what  he  planned  to  do  [from  (2)  &  (4)].

(6) If  God  can  change  his  mind,  and  do  something  different  from  what  he  originally  planned  to  do,  then  he  did  not  originally  know  what  he  was  going  to  do.

With  the  concept  of  omnipotence  and  omniscience,  God  is  continually  contradicting  himself,  and  continually  locking  himself  to  an  event.  Either  he  knows  what  he  is  going  to  do,  and  cannot  change  it,  or  he  is  not  so  sure  what  will  happen,  and  is  free  to  make  any  decision.  The  only  way  to  escape  this  contradiction  is  to  admit  that  God  is  either  not  omnipotent,  or  not  omniscient.

“We live in a ‘let-go’ world now, marketers are most likely to succeed and be ‘in touch’ when they let consumers be in control. Consumers are more participative and selective and the trend from push to pull is accelerating, the consumer is truly boss now,”A.G. Lafley, CEO, Procter & Gamble  

Access, communications and communities have created a new C2C generation i.e. generation ‘C’ that defies conventional marketing, decides how and what they want to consume and can create unprecedented successes for those who can operate and harness their value contribution. The empowerment of connection, creation and contribution has changed the way consumers live and that in turn has led to change the way businesses operate today. Adjusting business to this new consumer reality is not an option, it is now the new business imperative.  

“We are Digital Immigrants in this world increasingly in the hands of Digital Natives. Realizing this is our biggest challenge,” Rupert Murdoch, CEO, Times Corp.

C2C interaction is described as “the interaction among customers (of a certain product or service) that affects the purchase, the value, and/or the conceived satisfaction towards the product or service. Today, C2C interaction leverages on web 2.0 and can be defined as the “interaction among agents in a poly-agent system” that are networked by computer networks and standardized interface.

 

Consumers are actively using the internet and mobile technology. They are well connected as a result of easy accessibility of advanced communication and social networking. IP technology and online communities is enabling consumers to communicate globally at virtually no costs.

 

Online communities also provide consumers with a platform to manage their social networks as well as to satisfy their intrinsic need of having to “belong” to a group. The various collaborating and sharing enabled technologies are being used by consumers to effectively contribute to each other.

 

As a result, we have a generation of consumers who are in control of their experiences. Personalization, content generation and searching enabled technology contributes to enhance this control.